HellsBelleDec 13, 2024

‘Unprecedented risk’ to life on Earth: Scientists call for halt on ‘mirror life’ microbe research

https://sh.itjust.works/post/29409961

‘Unprecedented risk’ to life on Earth: Scientists call for halt on ‘mirror life’ microbe research - sh.itjust.works

World-leading scientists have called for a halt on research to create “mirror life” microbes amid concerns that the synthetic organisms would present an “unprecedented risk” to life on Earth. The international group of Nobel laureates and other experts warn that mirror bacteria, constructed from mirror images of molecules found in nature, could become established in the environment and slip past the immune defences of natural organisms, putting humans, animals and plants at risk of lethal infections. Many molecules for life can exist in two distinct forms, each the mirror image of the other. The DNA of all living organisms is made from “right-handed” nucleotides, while proteins, the building blocks of cells, are made from “left-handed” amino acids. Why nature works this way is unclear: life could have chosen left-handed DNA and right-handed proteins instead. The fresh concerns over the technology are revealed in a 299-page report [https://purl.stanford.edu/cv716pj4036] and a commentary in the journal Science [https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.ads9158]. While enthusiastic about research on mirror molecules, the report sees substantial risks in mirror microbes and calls for a global debate on the work.

Show threadnickwitha_k (he/him)Dec 13, 2024

This seems like something that really is a minimal risk. Pathogens are pathogens because they are able to make use of our bodies as raw materials to reproduce. Unless they are able to make use of both enantiomers in their biology, there’s little benefit to dedicating resources to colonizing us.

Probably a bigger concern would be outcompeting and displacing organisms lower on the food chain.

Show threadmaloDec 13, 2024
And your background in biology is…?
Show threadMr_Dr_OinkDec 13, 2024

You read what they wrote and became sceptical of their credentials? I mean, it’s healthy to be cautiously sceptical of anything you read/hear to an extent. But to immediately and without any further discussion, call them out in a patronising and condescending way is wild.

It makes me want to know if you have a background in biology. Since you so readily dispute someone else’s. Someone who, at least on the surface, seems to know what they are talking about.

In fact, why do you give so much credit to the legitimacy of the article and its writer, there might be a “38 strong group” of nobel laureates and experts warning about this, but the writer of the article adds the spin. The writer decides how to portray the warnings and their urgency. They might be overselling this. And since there is little to no citation in the article, i am more inclined to question the articles’ legitimacy before i query this poster…

Show threadmaloDec 13, 2024
Why do you give so much credit to the legitimacy of the random poster on internet?
Show threadproleDec 13, 2024

I’m kind of surprised by the reaction you’re getting here as I had the same exact question (you can see that I posted it before seeing yours).

Knowing that the person has some background in biology helps, but that was not clear in the initial comment. And even still, I lean toward believing the actual professionals who have studied this exact thing for years over some random person on an internet forum.

Show threadMr_Dr_Oink

In fairness, i completely agree that the experts mentioned in the article are more than likely a reliable source of information here and their opinion is almost certainly the one i would side with, not being a biologist by any stretch of the imagination myself.

However, that’s not really my point. My point is that this person immediately, condescendingly and patronisingly disputed the claim of aomeone who at the very least sounded like they knew what they were talking about, without showing any evidence that they themselves are a reputable source of doubt and without knowing anything about the person they were disputing.

I dont think that’s a healthy way to discuss things.

Dec 13, 2024 at 4:15pmWeb
Show threadnickwitha_k (he/him)Dec 13, 2024

In fairness, i completely agree that the experts mentioned in the article are more than likely a reliable source of information here and their opinion is almost certainly the one i would side with

In all fairness, I also agree with them likely being a solid source of information. There’s been a huge trend of leveraging academic credentials to boost sensationalism in recent years, so, until I read their reasoning, I am skeptical, specifically of whether or not it is blown out of proportion by the authors or the science communicator.